search for: rewording

> Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): I committed several typo fixes / rewording fixes to the release notes just now. The following paragraph under the "New Useful APIs" section needs to be reworded but I am not sure what is trying to be expressed so I have not done anything with it yet: The optimizer uses the new CodeMetrics class to measure the size of code. Vario...

Now I believe that I am getting the same error as I was getting last time I tried to build llvm-gcc. It may possibly be my Cygwin instillation but am not sure. makeinfo --split-size=5000000 -I ../../../src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc -I ../../../src/ llvm-gcc/gcc/doc/include \ -o ../../../src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc/cpp.info ../../../src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc/cpp.texi ' in

...your wording isn't clear enough: "Allocating zero bytes is undefined." My understanding is that an undefined operation is illegal; however, the implementation is not required to diagnose it. Allocating zero bytes is legal; it's just that the result is meaningless. Consider rewording as "Allocating zero bytes is legal, but the result is undefined. The result of a zero-sized allocation is a valid argument for free." Regarding free, I also think your wording isn't clear enough: "If the pointer is null, the result is undefined." The free result is voi...

Hi Aaron, have you got any help on this? Henrik >From: "Aaron Gray" Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 18:26:01 +0100 > >Now I believe that I am getting the same error as I was getting last time I >tried to build llvm-gcc. >It may possibly be my Cygwin instillation but am not sure. > > >makeinfo --split-size=5000000 -I ../../../src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc -I >../../../src/

>Hi Aaron, >have you got any help on this? Henrik, No. This is where I was stuck some months ago. I do not know makeinfo so was not able to proceed any thurther than verifying the makeinfo statement did the same thing when done on the command line. Basically I am stuck. I do not know whether it was my Cygwin configuration or something I have done or not done or whether it is a valid

Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Things still needed are marked with FIXMEs. These include: 1. Clang needs a blurb describing what's new in 2.7. Have the clang folks been doing anything for the last 6 months? 2. I

Dear all, I would like some help, please, with implementing Hal`s excellent suggestion, which I have reworded as below. Hal has confirmed a previous version of my rewording as a correct interpretation. [I made minor changes since then, e.g. for grammar.] [Abe wrote:] >> I think you [Hal] are suggesting something like this: >> 1) compile the program with FP fusion off, >> run the program, capture the output and save it, >> ha...

...9;t clear enough: "Allocating > zero bytes is undefined." My understanding is that an undefined > operation is illegal; however, the implementation is not required to > diagnose it. Allocating zero bytes is legal; it's just that the result > is meaningless. Consider rewording as "Allocating zero bytes is legal, > but the result is undefined. The result of a zero-sized allocation is a > valid argument for free." > > Regarding free, I also think your wording isn't clear enough: "If the > pointer is null, the result is undefined.&quot...

...clear enough: "Allocating > zero bytes is undefined." My understanding is that an undefined > operation is illegal; however, the implementation is not required to > diagnose it. Allocating zero bytes is legal; it's just that the > result > is meaningless. Consider rewording as "Allocating zero bytes is > legal, > but the result is undefined. The result of a zero-sized allocation > is a > valid argument for free." Sure, that makes sense. > Regarding free, I also think your wording isn't clear enough: "If the > pointer is null...

On 07/14/16 05:56, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > @Peter, Erwan, Gene, Michal, (and anyone else interested)... > > Although I haven't actually tested Erwan's patch, would it be > acceptable by you (all) if I were to send a patch to this Syslinux > Mailing List with the same code while changing the wording as I > previously suggested in a prior email? Would it be

On 1 January 2013 02:03, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > I'm not sure if this was clear from my description, but it will still > commit each commit in `origin/master..HEAD` individually. Not explicitly, but I assumed so. Good thing git has a powerful squash/merge/reword interface. This is probably another topic that it's worth mention in the docs explicitly. --

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr> wrote: > From: Martin Peres <martin.peres at labri.fr> > > This patch is a follow-up from Ilia Mirkin's enable H.264 patch which > solves the problem that prevented MPEG-4 videos to play correctly. > > Tested on an nva3. I might reword this as """ VP3/VP4 now work on all the

Hi, I have been trying to make llvm-gcc under CygWin and am getting a makeinfo error. I have tried it on the command line :- makeinfo --split-size=5000000 --force -I /usr/src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc -I /usr/src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc/include -o /usr/src/llvmgcc/gcc/doc/cpp.info /usr/src/llvm-gcc/gcc/doc/cpp.texi And get the resulting output :- $ makeinfo --split-size=5000000 --force -I

...at 3:59 PM, Abe Skolnik <a.skolnik at samsung.com> > > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I would like some help, please, with implementing Hal`s excellent > > suggestion, which I have reworded as below. Hal has confirmed a > > previous version of my rewording as a correct interpretation. [I > > made minor changes since then, e.g. for grammar.] > > > > [Abe wrote:] > > > >>> I think you [Hal] are suggesting something like this: > > > >>> 1) compile the program with FP fusion off, > >>&g...

Hello mongrelians, I''ve had several submissions sent to me regarding the apache documentation on the mongrel site: http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/apache.html I have assembled quite a bit of updates and changes, but if you know of anything that has been useful to you, or that is missing or can be reworded or added (or missing attributes!) please let me know. cheers, -- Charles

...series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: 1) I kept removed the ack from Jason as I reworked the patch @Jason, the nature and goal of the patch did not really changed please can I get back your acked-by with these changes? 2) Rewording for warning messages Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2): virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection arch/s390/mm/init.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/virtio_...

Due to recent list traffic, it seems that we need to have a new todo list! I propose the following 1) Nuke current todo page 2) Create new todo page 3) Clear out ancient todo items a) Get rid of the items that are no longer relevant b) Reword those that are 4) Update Wiki a) Gasp as the magnitude at the job b) Inject coffee, add ego - write mini todo and propose to list c) Expand on b) till

Due to recent list traffic, it seems that we need to have a new todo list! I propose the following 1) Nuke current todo page 2) Create new todo page 3) Clear out ancient todo items a) Get rid of the items that are no longer relevant b) Reword those that are 4) Update Wiki a) Gasp as the magnitude at the job b) Inject coffee, add ego - write mini todo and propose to list c) Expand on b) till

Hi Aaron, which version of makeinfo are you running? Henrik. >No. This is where I was stuck some months ago. > >I do not know makeinfo so was not able to proceed any thurther than >verifying the makeinfo statement did the same thing when done on the >command line. > >Basically I am stuck. I do not know whether it was my Cygwin configuration >or something I have done

> It looks fairly likely llvm will accept arbitrary expressions as > aliasees again (see thread on llvmdev), but the restrictions inherent > from what alias are at the object level will remain, just be reworded > a bit. For example, we will have something along the lines of "the > aliasee expression cannot contain an undefined GlobalValue". And this is in: r210062. Let